DEHRADUN: Uttarakhand HC has dismissed a petition filed by Welham Boys’ School in Dehradun challenging a govt order prohibiting residential schools from charging fees other than tuition fees during Covid-19 pandemic when classes were conducted online.
The petition, pending for over 3 years, sought to quash the 2021 order, arguing “govt has no authority to issue orders relating to school fees of private unaided residential schools”. The govt counsel said during lockdown, private unaided residential schools were collecting additional fees, including “hostel fees, mess and laundry charges, horse-riding fees, development charges, and swimming charges”, even when these services were not availed by students. Chief standing counsel C S Rawat argued these schools had no grounds to charge such fees “in the name of maintenance.” He said govt order explicitly allowed only tuition fees for online classes.
Additional chief standing counsel P C Bisht argued that the govt acted as a custodian of public welfare to prevent private residential schools from exploiting their dominant position to burden parents financially. “State was under constitutional duty to intervene to ensure that education of children does not suffer a setback due to financial crisis suffered by parents during the pandemic,” he added.
After hearing both sides, the court concluded that state govt was justified in exercising its powers under Article 162 of the Constitution to issue such directions. It added, “In view of the emergent situation caused by the pandemic and the consequent lockdown, state was justified in issuing necessary directions to private unaided residential schools not to charge fees for services, which were not availed of by students during the period.”
The court acknowledged that while the executive power of the state extends to matters within the legislature’s purview, it is not without limits. Citing a Supreme Court ruling, the HC said that in the absence of parliamentary legislation on a subject, state govts have the authority to issue executive orders. “But such orders cannot offend the provisions of the Constitution and should not be repugnant to any enactment of the appropriate legislature,” it added.
